Concordance Argument

From nothing, nothing comes. Expressed in physics with matter, in philosophy with causality, and in Biology with life, ex nihilo arguments point toward a beginning and hence beginner. The causality, existence and life aspects of this are often used toward this end, but other things exist that do not have to and hence require explanation, things that exist and recreate themselves yet never spontaneously generate, in the same way that life does. These things can be used similarly in arguing for a Creator. Furthermore, these things can allow us to explore aspects of that Creator, as if they have their origin in Him, they must also be aspects of Him.

1) Relationship- Relationship exists, but there is no reason for it to have to. Reality could be unitary, or atomistic. Relationship seems to arise as a consequence of relationship, whether in human families, in environmental interaction, in mathematics, or in the scientific pursuit of knowledge. And like life, the domain/span of relationship continues to grow (esp. in the fields of human knowledge). There must, then be an original relationship. Yet, the Creator was before all other things with which to have relationship. Therefore, he exists in relationship to Himself. This explains the creative impulse, as it is act to extend relationship. Relationships grow, like life. Discovery, then, is a human derivative of creation, as it also grows out of a desire to expand the span of relationship (by expanding to fill creation, rather than by the production of creation.) Relationship is then expanded vertically through creation (not necessarily temporally) in the relationship between God and creation, and horizontally through discovery in the relationships within creation. This expansion points back to an origin of relationship unexplainable by naturalism.

2) Consciousness- Self-consciousness also has no reason to exist. ('For beings without purpose, we seem to very preoccupied with questions of purpose') There is no reason that increasing our ability to externally optimize would cause us to look back inwards. Consciousness only comes from consciousness. It can be ended by non-consciousness, but can never be started by non-consciousness. Therefore, there must be a conscious origin for consciousness. This follows a similar pattern as the relationship argument. Naturalism has no explanation for consciousness.

3) Elegance- Nature is never clumsy. It never seems to use 'best fit' solutions, but rather solutions seem to enhance overall systems. There is art in the laws. Solutions are simple, yet complex. The most complex systems arise from simple laws. Human designs arise as a function of compromise. Solutions involve tradeoffs and rarely increase efficiency beyond solving the problem they are intended for. This is because our solutions do not usually take into account the overall intent of the design. Randomness, having no grasp of the overall design at all, would exhibit this clumsiness even more so. Omniscience, however, would have a total grasp of the overall design, and hence all of their solutions would be elegant. A naturalistic counterargument would involve infinite optimization with optimal time, but human optimization tends to get clunkier with time (design by committee), as best fits are incorporated into a design and become convention. It is only destruction of the framework that restores elegance in the creation of a new framework. (A mature aircraft design is usually less elegant (aerodynamically efficient) than the initial design, even if more capable: avionics backbone on A-4, CFTs on F-15E, etc.) Naturalism might rely on such a dialectic destructive process, but without directing dynamics, this would result almost solely in destruction, thereby hurting the original argument with a clunky solution to a problem (once again showing the results of inelegance.)

4) Transcendence- We grapple with concepts beyond the visible boundaries of the physical world. Yet we are incapable of forming a non-existent concept, except through the combination of extant concepts (which is the relational development of concepts.) Our desire for higher-level knowledge is definitionally a desire for transcendence. Human beings desire to be (and are) transcendent from their environment, even when still in it. Transcendence definitionally must flow from transcendence. God must then be the first transcendence, the 'I AM.' Stated simply, if God doesn't exist, a vast majority of humanity has wasted a vast amount of time trying to figure Him out. One might ascribe 'God-talk's origin to a desire for perfect government, but ordinally and temporally the concept of God is over the concept of government. (Government is a derivative of God's dominion, as 'the government shall be on His shoulder.') Furthermore, if the idea of God is the integral of a perfect government, one must ask why? If this is the case, it becomes an argument for His existence, rather than against it.

5) Cognizance- Humans desire more knowledge, to know and be known by those around them and their environment. They seek to expand their knowledge, and knowledge is a function of relations, so they seek to expand their relationships (see 1.) The desire to know and be known must come from somewhere, the Creator must seek to know and be known. Humans can recognize beauty in predatory animals (such as in zoos or in the wild.) There is no naturalistic explanation for this, for all threats must be countered under the law of 'kill or be killed.' Yet we seek to understand that which can hurt us (arguably too much,) even without countering it. Naturalism cannot explain the desire to know and be known, for animals desire survival, optimization, but not dominion. We desire dominion, and hence must come from Dominion.